Archive for the ‘Sola Scriptura’ Category

A. C. Dixon, Pastor of Metropolitan Tabernacle, London, England commented about the Scriptures as the inspirid Word of God when he said:

“2. A BIBLICAL USE OF THE BIBLE
It is four-fold: “Profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness? “Doctrine” is the teaching, not of the man as he may express his opinion in social converse, but of the ambassador who carries with him the weight of his government’s authority; and in the Bible we find God’s official proclamation of love, pardon, cleansing, righteousness and peace.
The word “reproof” comes after doctrine, because it has to do with the character which doctrine makes. The Bible is profitable not only for the doctrine which we get out of it, but it is the standard by which we try our doctrines. It proves and reproves. It is the plumb-line that we drop by the wall to see if it is straight. It is the yard-stick by which we measure every creed.
The word “correction” means restoration, and gives a thought in advance of doctrine and reproof. It has in it the thought of making right what we have found to be wrong. The plumb-line may show that the wall leans, but it cannot straighten it. The yard-stick may reveal that the cloth is too short, but it cannot lengthen it. The Bible, however, not only shows us wherein we are wrong, but it can right us. When Canova saw the piece of marble which, at great expense, had been secured for a celebrated statue; his practiced eye discovered a little piece of black running through it, and he rejected it. He could discover the black, but he could not make the black white. The Bible discovers the black and makes it white.
The fourth word, “instruction,” means literally “child-culture,” and has in it all that the parent needs for the growth, development and maturing of the child. The Bible is a training school in righteousness. Other books give training in music, rhetoric, oratory, but the specialty of the Bible is training in righteousness.”(http://fundamentalists.whybaptist.com/chaptereight-two.aspx)

At the climactic stop of his 137-mile train trip that began in Philadelphia, passed through Wilmington, Del. and was to end at Washington’s Union Station, Obama spoke of the need to recapture the spirit of the American revolution. “What is required is a new declaration of independence, not just in our nation, but in our own lives – from ideology and small thinking, prejudice and bigotry…” he said He added, “Only a handful of times in our history has a generation been confronted with challenges so vast,” citing tough economic times and two wars. Americans today must call upon “the same perseverance and idealism that our founders displayed,” to deal with those challenges, he said. (from the dc examiner)

If what is meant in the bold type, that Obama means for those of us who still believe the Bible should give it up to a global ideal, then I have a problem with it. First the only world wide government that will work is the one with the Lord Jesus as King of Kings and Lord of Lords. Any movement that seeks to minimize Christ and put Him on equal footing with other religions (those man made ones?) is not going to be supported by those of us who still believe the scriptures. The suggestion that is being made sounds strangely like the rule of the Anti Christ. The only logic that makes sense to me is the one that says if A is true (being Christ), then B can not be true (being all others) . This being true then I stand on the following scripture:

“Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. (Act 4:12)”

These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful. (Rev 17:14)

And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS. (Rev 19:16)

And after these things I heard a great voice of much people in heaven, saying, Alleluia; Salvation, and glory, and honour, and power, unto the Lord our God: (Rev 19:1)

For true and righteous are his judgments: for he hath judged the great whore, which did corrupt the earth with her fornication, and hath avenged the blood of his servants at her hand. (Rev 19:2)

And again they said, Alleluia. And her smoke rose up for ever and ever. (Rev 19:3)

And the four and twenty elders and the four beasts fell down and worshipped God that sat on the throne, saying, Amen; Alleluia. (Rev 19:4)

And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. (Rev 19:13)

And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. (Rev 19:14)

And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. (Rev 19:15)

And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS. (Rev 19:16)

And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God; (Rev 19:17)

And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. (Rev 20:15)

I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. (Rev 22:13)

Ancient Rome is a parent of our current world ethos. We have drawn not only our government from Rome and Greece, but Rome was also the ancient parent of modern humanism. We must first examine what history and culture tells us to see where it is leading us (Schaeffer, 19).

“This flow is rooted and has its wellspring in the thoughts of people. People are unique in the inner life of the mind–what they are in their thought world determines how the act (Schaeffer, 19)”

If we are too make any sense out of the chaos that surrounds us today, we first have too see what the flow of history tells us. There is an old saying that says “Those who will not learn from history are doomed to repeat its errors”. We can follow every thing from the past down to present day counter parts, nothing is really new, but just repackaged for our modern age. Modern secular humanism as well as religious humanism had its start in ancient Rome and Greece (Schaeffer, 19). Our modern American culture is sinking into an abyss that was dug by humanistic evolutionists and sociologists.

What is true of people in their thoughts is determining how they live is also true in “value systems”. It is also true in the actions of our large corporations and it is true in our political decisions. It is also true in modern mans personal and private life (Schaeffer, 19). What we think determines how we live. A case in point over the last few years has been the great number of industry, entertainment and political figures who have found themselves on the wrong end of the law. It was their thought lives that ultimately led them to make decisions based on nothing more then it felt right. People today are not likely to choose the Bible as their basis for the decisions of life. If they did their would be fewer murders and robberies as well as white collar crime.

“People have presuppositions, and they will live more consistently on the basis of these presuppositions than even they themselves realize. By presuppositions we mean the basic way an individual looks at life, his basic world view (Schaeffer, 19).

If my presupposition says that I can do anything I want to, because this is what I like, then people would be starting with the presupposition that man has all the right answers. If man starts with man he will end with man. If people are what we view the world through and if what we think in our minds determines that view then the natural outcome is a man centered world. Everything that we have brought forth during the last two hundred years, as well as the last 6,000 or so years is based on what we as individuals think. “‘As a man thinketh, so is he.’ is really profound”(Schaeffer, 19). We are more then just so many molecules, but we are also an “inner world”. People can influence the world based on what they think in their inner world (Schaeffer, 19)

The thoughts in peoples inner world has a profound effect upon the external world. In fact all the actions that are occurring right now have their basis in some ones inner thoughts. People are angry today, not because they have an external reason to do so, but because they are angry in their thought world. What is wrong with man kind is spiritual and can only be adequately explained by the Christian world view. This means that Christ must be at the center of how we act and live. This also means that the scriptures are really the only basis for what we believe and how we act. We refuse today to put the ten commandments into our schools and courts, because of the mistaken view that this would violate separation of church and state. Instead we rely on the word of man, which changes daily if not moment by moment. We have even gone so far as to put Christ on the back burner in our churches and have opted instead for man made programs, such as The Purpose Driven life.

There are a handful of philosopher-theologians who have contributed immensely to the development of a Christian world view. Some of these are much earlier then we are living at this time. They produced a basis of how Christians view the world around them. During the last 50 years or so none has had such a major impact on how we should live our faith then Francis A. Schaeffer. He openly professed loyalty to the scriptures above all else. It is my intention to use his book as a series of studies. These will be found at Why Baptist Blog and also at Listen to God this is meant as a review and is in no way meant as an extensive analysis. The word of God is above else to be taken as the only authority in all maters of faith and practice (Sola Scriptura). “Few Christians have had greater impact during the last half of the twentieth century then Dr. Francis A. Schaeffer (Schaeffer, Francis A., 9). I am drawing as a theme statement that we are seeing a “growing disintegration and decline of truth and morality throughout our world (Schaeffer, 9). This includes both a historical perspective as well as a theological basis.

Every facet of our lives as Christians has been impacted by a growing, but extremely “devastating impact” of both the post immerging church movement and the “post Christian consensus” (Schaeffer, 9). Christians as a whole in our times are living without any kind of world view let alone a Christian world view. In fact one of our current (Christian) church leaders is now suggesting that we have a new reformation. It is suggested that we still follow the original reformation statements of truth, but have added a practical reformation. This implies as well as means that the Reformation was not sufficient or even might have been wrong. A practical reformation is actually a denial of the scriptures that gave us the protestant reformation. So what will it be the Word of God or the Word of Man, the choice can only be one of these. Which will you choose to follow.

Not only has the Christian message been impacted by the modern form of humanism, but so has “art, music, drama, theology and the mass media”. This has left “people with no basis for meaning, or truth, or hope in life…two impoverished values of ‘personal peace and affluence'”(Schaeffer, 10). This is indeed a personal question to each of us “How should we then live” (Schaeffer, 11)? Should it be by the changing whims of situation ethics? What about atheistic communism, does it have a sufficient basis for living? Should it be by atheistic evolution? As for me I choose to live by the Word of the living God and this only “Sola Scriptura”.

“And I believe one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church;
I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins;
and I look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. AMEN.”

The net result of controversy over the teaching of scripture has been to solidify and define how those who continue to adhere to the teaching of Scripture view the subject. No controversy that I have ever seen or been a part of has had any effects that caused the other side to abandon their beliefs. For instance in the 70’s I had a controversy with some friends over the doctrines of Grace. They have not changed and neither have I. However, I know what I believe and can put it into words much better. I have also learned that since controversy is really a ragging river, that I can find safety and comfort only when I am near to the feet of my Great and Good Shepherd, the Lord Jesus Christ. Nothing can really be over whelming when I am near to HIM. Certainly that was the experience of Martin Luther at the Diet of Worms (pronounced vorms) a night of prayer and closeness to Jesus gave him confidence to the day ahead. That is how it ought to be our confidence is not in our selves, but is in our Great and Good Shepherd.

There was controversy that led to the Nicene creed, which the above final paragraph is quoted above. The controversies that swirled around the Christian faith during the first five centuries centered around two errors. The first of these was gnosticism, which denied that the Lord Jesus had a real body. The problem they saw was they considered God to be to pure to occupy or be joined to a human body. The Apostles Creed drawn up in the first or second century refuted gnosticism, that is it emphasized that Jesus Christ had a real body of flesh. Thus it denied the gnostic heresy. The Nicene creed drawn up in the fourth century refuted Arianism, that is that Jesus was fully man, but he was not fully God. These two heresies either denied a real body for Christ who was really God or denied Christ was God, but that He had a real body. Gnosticism was the first of these two and Arianism was the second of these. So the Apostles creed repudiated gnosticism and the Nicene creed repudiated Arianism. The Athanasian creed which came much later expanded on the Nicean creed, because by the 5th and 6th century Arianism had expanded.

I am a baptist and by way of explanation, baptists do not consider themselves to be creedle. They are also in no way to be considered liturgical and this kind of worship just plain makes me very uncomfortable. However, do not make the mistake of thinking that I have no value for these three great creeds. I certainly believe in the doctrinal beliefs that were under girding these statements. The scriptures teach these truths very significantly. In fact you do not need to move very far out of the gospel of John, I John and Revelation to prove this point. These were the scriptures that were considered when these creeds were drawn up.

To baptists the catholic faith is the body of truths contained in scripture, which is fully inerrant in the original autographs and is the object of our joint faith. The faith of the apostles is the scriptures. The scriptures are an absolute authority in all maters of faith and practice (sola scriptura). This is the only reason why the creeds worked in the first place. There was no tradition for these early counsels to draw on. The only authority that they had was the scriptures. The one holy and catholic faith was further define in The Athanasian Creed, where that faith is placed into propositional form. We have left this whole idea of the scriptures as being revealed truth from a Holy and Just God to sinful man, as being too old fashioned for modern man. The turth is that the scriptures are propotional truth. The truth of scripture today is laughed at and ridiculed, but as much by those who claim to be Christians as those who don’t. Instead of accepting the truths contained in the book of Genesis as being wholly true, we give into the human spirit of these days and accept the Darwinian proposition.

The scriptures by themselves are sufficient and nothing else is needed. Whatever the need is whether in doctrine or practice, the scriptures cover it. The problem with tradition is, that it has a way of changing from time to time. Tradition is dependent on man and man alone. Tradition that is not born out of a belief in the doctrine of scripture is a recipe for error. In fact tradition is how errors have crept in in the first place. Tradition is what powered the Pharisee of the New Testament, they believed that their words of interpretation were necessary to understand the Bible. For some reason or other it seemed that the scriptures needed some help from man, because the law was hard to understand. Really, the Bible does not need our help and it is all that is necessary for faith and salvation.

We are in the midst of a most profound spiritual war, one that is in the defense of biblical truth. Mankind has finally decided that he knows better then God, even though mankind professes to not have faith in God. This warfare is a tug of war over our spiritual values as a nation. It is really about the eternal destiny of millions of souls and the hearts and lives of people the world over. Why is it then becoming so hard to get believers to make a stand of committment to biblical truth. Many no longer believe the biblical account of the life of Christ, in fact many just right out front deny the existence of Christ. We have come to the place as a people that we have sacrificed ourselves on the altar of humanism what is left of our loyalty to God’s word. It is so easy for our people to deny the biblical account of creation in favor of darwinian evolution, in fact even major world religious leaders have now sided with the darwinists.

One of the reasons that this is happening is that man is caught up in a struggle over reason. Reason has been found to be a deadly partner in living. What I mean is that once you have sucombed to the primacy of reason, then faith becomes just faith for faiths sake. God becomes just a word and when it is discovered that God is just a word it is but one step to saying God is dead. The other side of this is that since the Scriptures are authoritative and inerrant, that their authority must extend to the particulars. This includes all maters of faith and practice. One of those areas is history and the scriptures are authority in history, including creation. The world was made by God we are told in Scripture and this was done in 6 twenty four hour days, imagine the impact of this.

War between the fources of humanism and God’s army of believers is being fought on all fronts. The good news is that the war has already been won, because nothing can resist the Lord Jesus Christ without being broken into pieces.

People continue asking, “Did Vatican II change the dogma of Roman Catholic Church concerning what they teach about the Church and salvation?” And it seems that no matter how many times we try and tell people that it did not they continue to ask. So in this article I now ask a question in return: Will the pope do?

Yet in a July 12, 2007 story entitled “New Vatican document affirms centrality of Catholic Church” from the Catholic World News (CWN) Feature Stories we read:

The Vatican has issued a new doctrinal statement confirming the essential role of the Catholic Church in God’s plan for salvation. The short document from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), presented in question-and-answer format, addresses questions about the teaching of the Second Vatican Council that the Church founded by Jesus Christ “subsists” in the Catholic Church…

The document, entitled “Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church,” is approved by Pope Benedict XVI…and signed by Cardinal William Levada and Archbishop Angelo Amato, the prefect and secretary, respectively, of the CDF… The full text of the document is available on the Vatican web site. (Online source)

We’ll discuss “Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith” (CDF) and I’ll give you the direct link to it from the Vatican Library below so you can read it for yourself. But first notice carefully what I have highlighted above. You need to understand that when Rome speaks of the “Catholic” Church she is not talking about “the Holy and Catholic Church” of the ancient creeds, but rather, she is instead referring to herself. There is a huge and critical difference, which I discuss in more depth within the articles listed at the end of this missive.

But clearly Rome believes, as does her Pope Benedict, that she alone is the Church founded by Jesus Christ and further that she plays the—not an—but “the essential role” in “God’s plan for salvation.” And if something is essential then it is necessary, of the utmost importance, and thereby indespensible; in other words, if you do not have what is essential you are without. In this case it would mean that someone like me, who is a former Roman Catholic having rejected this apostate church, is now without its “essential role” in my “salvation.”

Now the Roman Catholic Church considers her Pope the Vicar—as in the supreme and highest representative—of Christ on earth. So if he approves this document concerning Roman Catholic dogma it is considered God’s opinion on the matters to which it speaks. And at that point it matters not what the individual Roman Catholic scholar, theologian, or especially laymen, thinks about it. So with this as our background we tell you as per the Pope himself that the Roman Catholic Church teaches the exact same doctrine concerning salvation as she did when her Council of Trent cursed the Protestant Reformers as unbelievers.

CWN breaks the following down for you in simple terms:

In the first of 5 questions posed and answered, the CDF document asks, “Did the Second Vatican Council change the Catholic doctrine on the Church?” The answer begins with a straightforward statement: “The Second Vatican Council neither changed nor intended to change this doctrine, rather it developed, deepened and more fully explained it.” (ibid., emphasis mine)

You can see above that according to the Pope himself Vatican II did not change Roman Catholic doctrine nor with it being pronounced infallibly by the Pope and his teaching magisterium could it ever be changed. So exactly what is the point of on-going ecumenical dialogue with the Church of Rome who has zero intention of ever changing the dogma which led to the Protestant Reformation in the first place? One reason: For her to convince those in deceptive dialogue to change their positions.

The story from CWN then goes on:

Questions #2 and #3 address the teaching of the conciliar document Lumen Gentium…that the Church of Christ “subsists” in the Catholic Church… In the 4th and 5th questions that complete the document, the CDF draws a clear distinction between the Orthodox and Protestant denominations. The Eastern churches, the document notes, “have true sacraments and above all – because of the apostolic succession – the priesthood and the Eucharist.” They are therefore sister churches, even if they fall short of universality because of their separation from the Holy See.

The Protestant communities, on the other hand, “do not enjoy apostolic succession in the sacrament of Orders.” Because these communities “have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery,” the CDF writes, they “cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called “churches” in the proper sense.
(ibid., emphasis mine)

Men and women, it really can’t be made any clearer; and, it can’t come from a higher Roman Catholic source than the Pope himself. As you’ll see for yourself in the CDF document the dogma concerning another gospel of baptismal regeneration and sacramentalism along with its false view of justification put forth by the Roman Catholic Church in her Council of Trent remains exactly the same as in the time of Martin Luther. And not only that but churches arising from the proper Biblical doctrines taught by the Lord’s Protestant Reformers are not valid churches as far as Rome is concerned:

The Second Vatican Council neither changed nor intended to change this doctrine, rather it developed, deepened and more fully explained it. This was exactly what John XXIII said at the beginning of the Council. Paul VI affirmed it and commented in the act of promulgating the Constitution Lumen gentium: “There is no better comment to make than to say that this promulgation really changes nothing of the traditional doctrine.

What Christ willed, we also will. What was, still is. What the Church has taught down through the centuries, we also teach. In simple terms that which was assumed, is now explicit; that which was uncertain, is now clarified; that which was meditated upon, discussed and sometimes argued over, is now put together in one clear formulation”. The Bishops repeatedly expressed and fulfilled this intention…

Fifth Question: Why do the texts of the Council and those of the Magisterium since the Council not use the title of “Church” with regard to those Christian Communities born out of the Reformation of the sixteenth century?

According to Catholic doctrine, these Communities do not enjoy apostolic succession in the sacrament of Orders, and are, therefore, deprived of a constitutive element of the Church. These ecclesial Communities which, specifically because of the absence of the sacramental priesthood, have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called “Churches” in the proper sense. (Online source, emphasis theirs)

The negotiation about doctrinal agreement displeases me altogether, for this is utterly impossible unless the pope has his papacy abolished. Therefore avoid and flee those who seek the middle of the road. Think of me after I am dead and such middle-of-the-road men arise, for nothing good will come of it. There can be no compromise.
(What Luther Says, II: 1019, as cited at Online source)